Search

Background: In recent years, multiple guidelines on bariatric and metabolic surgery were published, however, their quality remains unknown, leaving providers with uncertainty when using them to make perioperative decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of existing guidelines for perioperative bariatric surgery care., Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE were conducted from January 2010 to October 2022 for bariatric clinical practice guidelines. Guideline evaluation was carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework., Results: The initial search yielded 1483 citations, of which, 26 were included in final analysis. The overall median domain scores for guidelines were: (1) scope and purpose: 87.5% (IQR: 57-94%), (2) stakeholder involvement: 49% (IQR: 40-64%), (3) rigor of development: 42.5% (IQR: 22-68%), (4) clarity of presentation: 85% (IQR: 81-90%), (5) applicability: 6% (IQR: 3-16%), (6) editorial independence: 50% (IQR: 48-67%), (7) overall impressions: 48% (IQR: 33-67%). Only six guidelines achieved an overall score >70%., Conclusions: Bariatric surgery guidelines effectively outlined their aim and presented recommendations. However, many did not adequately seek patient input, state search criteria, use evidence rating tools, and consider resource implications. Future guidelines should reference the AGREE II framework in study design., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine has shown promise in improving postoperative gastrointestinal function. In the context of colorectal surgery, the results remain inconsistent. This review aims to provide a synthesis of studies assessing the effect of dexmedetomidine on postoperative gastrointestinal function in colorectal surgery patients., Methods: CENTRAL, Emcare, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched up to September 2023. Randomized controlled trials involving adult patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing elective colorectal surgery, comparing dexmedetomidine administration to a control group, and reporting on postoperative gastrointestinal function were included. Non-comparative and emergent procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was time to first flatus or bowel movement, and secondary outcomes included length of stay and time to solid oral intake. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized studies., Results: After screening 1194 citations, eight studies were included. Studies comprised of 570 patients in the dexmedetomidine group (mean age: 65.8 years, 43% female, mean BMI: 22.7 kg/m 2 ) and 556 patients in control group (mean age 70.6 years, 40% female, mean BMI 22.5 kg/m 2 ). Dexmedetomidine administration resulted in a shorter time to flatus (MD -4.55 h, 95% CI: 20.14-8.95, p < 0.005, very low certainty of evidence), a shorter time to first bowel movement (MD -11.9 h, 95% CI: 18.74-5.05, p < 0.005, very low certainty of evidence), a shorter time to solid oral intake (MD -4.34 h, 95% CI: 17.43-11.24, p < 0.005, moderate certainty of evidence), and a shorter length of stay (MD -.06 days, 95% CI: 1.99-0.12, p < 0.05, very low certainty of evidence)., Conclusion: In adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, intraoperative use of dexmedetomidine results in clinically meaningful improvements in postoperative gastrointestinal function and consequently, shorter length of stay. Therefore, dexmedetomidine may serve as a valuable adjunct in enhancing postoperative recovery of patients following elective colorectal surgery, thereby reducing healthcare utilization, and improving patient outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) contributes to morbidity and prolonged hospitalization. Prucalopride, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor agonist, may enhance bowel motility. This review assesses whether the perioperative use of prucalopride compared to placebo is associated with accelerated return of bowel function post gastrointestinal (GI) surgery., Methods: OVID, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched as of January 2024 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prucalopride and placebo for prevention of PPOI in adult patients undergoing GI surgery. The primary outcomes were time to stool, time to flatus, and time to oral tolerance. The secondary outcomes were incidence of PPOI, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, adverse events, and overall costs. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework were used. An inverse variance random effects model was used., Results: From 174 citations, 3 RCTs with 139 patients in each treatment group were included. Patients underwent a variety of GI surgeries. Patients treated with prucalopride had a decreased time to stool (mean difference 36.82 hours, 95% CI 59.4 to 14.24 hours lower, I 2 = 62%, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different (very low certainty evidence). Postoperative complications and adverse events could not be meta-analyzed due to heterogeneity; yet individual studies suggested no significant differences (very low certainty evidence)., Discussion: Current RCT evidence suggests that prucalopride may enhance postoperative return of bowel function. Larger RCTs assessing patient important outcomes and associated costs are needed before routine use of this agent., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Maintenance of normothermia is a crucial part of enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery. Dry-cold carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) traditionally used for insufflation in laparoscopic surgery and negative pressure operating theatres has been associated with intraoperative hypothermia. Studies suggest that use of warmed-humidified CO 2 may promote normothermia. However, due to a scarcity of high-quality studies demonstrating a proven benefit on intraoperative core body temperature, its use in colorectal surgery remains limited. Therefore, the aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of warmed-humidified CO 2 compared to traditional dry-cold CO 2 , or ambient air in operating theatres, during colorectal surgery., Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared patients receiving warmed-humidified CO 2 with either dry-cold CO 2 insufflation in laparoscopic procedures or no insufflation during open surgery were included. The primary outcome was change in intraoperative core body temperature. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, operating time, return of gastrointestinal function, wound infection, and postoperative pain. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects., Results: Among the six RCTs included, 208 patients received warmed-humidified CO 2 (42.3% female, mean age: 65.8 years) and 210 patients received either dry-cold CO 2 in laparoscopic procedures or no gas insufflation during open procedures (46.2% female, mean age: 66.1 years). No significant difference was found for change in intraoperative core body temperature (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.1, 0.11, p = 0.90, very low certainty). Patients in the warmed-humidified CO 2 group had significantly higher pain scores on postoperative day 1 (MD = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.91, 2.31, p < 0.05, very low certainty). No significant differences were found in any of the other secondary outcomes studied., Conclusion: Patients undergoing colorectal surgery receiving warmed-humidified CO 2 do not experience any clinically meaningful difference in core body temperature change compared to their counterparts receiving dry-cold CO 2 insufflation or no insufflation. However, patients may report greater pain scores on postoperative day 1 with warmed-humidified CO 2 . There is likely no clinically important difference between warmed-humidified CO 2 and dry-cold CO 2 for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Patient, clinician, and institution factors should be considered when deciding between these two insufflation modalities., (© 2023 The Authors. Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: When surgery is indicated for fulminant Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), total abdominal colectomy (TAC) is the most common approach. Diverting loop ileostomy (DLI) with antegrade colonic lavage has been introduced as a colon-sparing surgical approach. Prior analyses of National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data suggested equivalent postoperative outcomes between groups but did not evaluate healthcare resource utilization. As such, we aimed to analyze a more recent NIS cohort to compare these two approaches in terms of both postoperative outcomes and healthcare resource utilization., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the NIS from 2016 to 2019 was conducted. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital morbidity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative in-hospital mortality, system-specific postoperative complications, total admission cost, and length of stay (LOS). Univariable and multivariable regressions were utilized to compare the two operative approaches., Results: In total, 886 patients underwent TAC and 409 patients underwent DLI with antegrade colonic lavage. Adjusted analyses demonstrated no difference between groups in postoperative in-hospital morbidity (aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.64-1.44, p = 0.851) or in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.15, 95%CI 0.81-1.64, p = 0.436). Patients undergoing TAC experienced significantly decreased total admission cost (MD $79,715.34, 95%CI 133,841-25,588, p = 0.004) and shorter postoperative LOS (MD 4.06 days, 95%CI 6.96-1.15, p = 0.006)., Conclusions: There are minimal differences between TAC and DLI with antegrade colonic lavage for fulminant CDI in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Healthcare resource utilization, however, is significantly improved when patients undergo TAC as evidenced by clinically important decreases in total admission cost and postoperative LOS., (© 2023. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.)

Background: Though gastrojejunostomy (GJ) has been a standard palliative procedure for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), endoscopic stenting (ES) has shown to provide benefits due to its non-invasive approach. The aim of this review is to perform a comprehensive evaluation of ES versus GJ for the palliation of malignant GOO., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched and comparative studies of adult GOO patients undergoing ES or GJ were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes were survival time and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, reinterventions, days until oral food tolerance, postoperative adjuvant palliative chemotherapy, postoperative morbidities, length of stay (LOS), and costs. Pairwise meta-analyses using inverse-variance random effects were performed., Results: After identifying 2222 citations, 39 full-text articles fit the inclusion criteria. In total, 3128 ES patients (41.4% female, age: 68.0 years) and 2116 GJ patients (40.4% female, age: 66.8 years) were included. ES patients experienced a shorter survival time (mean difference -24.77 days, 95% Cl - 45.11 to  - 4.43, p = 0.02) and were less likely to undergo adjuvant palliative chemotherapy (risk ratio 0.81, 95% Cl 0.70 to 0.93, p = 0.004). The ES group had a shorter LOS, shorter time to oral intake of liquids and solids, and less surgical site infections (risk ratio 0.30, 95% Cl 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01). The patients in the ES group were at greater risk of requiring reintervention (risk ratio 2.60, 95% Cl 1.87 to 3.63, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: ES results in less postoperative morbidity and shorter LOS when compared to GJ, however, this may be at the cost of decreased initiation of adjuvant palliative chemotherapy and overall survival, as well as increased risk of reintervention. Both techniques are likely appropriate in select clinical scenarios., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The Senhance Surgical System allows for infrared eye tracking, haptic feedback, and an adjustable upright seat allowing for improved ergonomics. This systematic review was designed with the aim of reviewing the current literature pertaining to the use of the Senhance Surgical System in colorectal surgery. Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated adults undergoing colorectal surgery with the Senhance Surgical System. The primary outcome was intraoperative efficacy; as defined by operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and conversion. A DerSimonian and Laird inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate overall effect size estimates and narrative review was provided for each outcome. Six observational studies with 223 patients (mean age: 63.7, 41.2% female, mean BMI: 24.4 kg/m 2 ) were included. The most common indication for surgery was colorectal cancer (n = 180, 80.7%) and the most common operation was anterior resection (n = 72, 32.3%). Meta-analyses demonstrated a pooled total operative time of 229.8 min (95% CI 189.3-270.4, I 2  = 0%), console time of 141.3 min (95% CI 106.5-176.1, I 2  = 0%), and docking time of 10.8 min (95% CI 6.4-15.2, I 2  = 0%). The pooled EBL was 37.0 mL (95% CI 24.7-49.2, I 2  = 20%). Overall, there were nine (4.0%) conversions to laparoscopy/laparotomy. The Senhance Surgical System has an acceptable safety profile, reasonable docking and console times, low conversion rates, and an affordable case cost across a variety of colorectal surgeries. Further prospective, comparative trials with other robotic surgical platforms are warranted., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Preoperative carbohydrate loading has been introduced as a component of many enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Evaluation of current evidence for preoperative carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery has never been synthesized., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients undergoing colorectal surgery with and without preoperative carbohydrate loading were included. Primary outcomes were changes in blood insulin and glucose levels. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects., Results: The search yielded 3656 citations, from which 12 RCTs were included. In total, 387 patients given preoperative carbohydrate loading (47.2% female, age: 62.0 years) and 371 patients in control groups (49.4% female, age: 61.1 years) were included. There was no statistical difference for blood glucose and insulin levels between both patient groups. Patients receiving preoperative carbohydrate loading experienced a shorter time to first flatus (SMD: - 0.48 days, 95% CI: - 0.84 to - 0.12, p = 0.008) and stool (SMD: - 0.50 days, 95% CI: - 0.86 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). Additionally, length of stay was shorter in the preoperative carbohydrate loading group (SMD: - 0.51 days, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and patient well-being between both groups., Conclusions: Preoperative carbohydrate loading does not significantly impact postoperative glycemic control in patients undergoing colorectal surgery; however, it may be associated with a shorter length of stay and faster return of bowel function. It merits consideration for inclusion within colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocols., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The association between influenza and adverse vascular events in patients with heart failure is well documented. The effect of the influenza vaccine on preventing such adverse events is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis addressed whether vaccination against influenza reduces adverse vascular events and mortality in heart failure patients., Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were comprehensively searched, study screening and quality assessment were completed, and data was synthesized. Eligible studies investigated heart failure patients who received the influenza vaccine, and reported outcomes within 12 months, compared to heart failure patients who did not receive the influenza vaccine. The following 6 outcomes were assessed: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular-related hospitalization, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a GRADE assessment was completed. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity using I 2 statistics., Results: After synthesizing data from 7 non-randomized studies (247,842 patients), the results demonstrate the risk of all-cause mortality is significantly reduced within 12 months of a heart failure patient receiving the influenza vaccine (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.71-0.79; P<0.0001); very low certainty of evidence. The risk of cardiovascular-related mortality was significantly reduced (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.73-0.81; P<0.0001); low certainty of evidence. The pooled risk of all-cause hospitalization was higher among vaccinated heart failure patients (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.13-1.35; P<0.0001), based on two studies; very low certainty of evidence and considerable heterogeneity (I 2  = 90%). No eligible studies assessed cardiovascular-related hospitalization, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke., Conclusions: Influenza vaccination appears to reduce adverse cardiovascular events, although the certainty of the evidence is low or very low. Rigorous randomized controlled trial evidence is needed to further examine the protective effect of the influenza vaccine in heart failure patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Loeb has received funding from Sanofi, Seqirus, Medicago, and Pfizer for advisory work. He has received research funding for Seqirus and has received in-kind vaccines from Sanofi for a clinical trial. All other authors report no conflicting interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)